Nur Alam was tried under section 452/354, P. P. C. By the Magistrate First Class, Haroonabad, who by his judgment dated 5th December, 1979, convicted and sentenced him to two years' R. I. And fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo further R. I. For three months under section 452, P. P. C. And one year's R. I. Under section 354, P. P. C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The convict filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 13th March, 1980. Hence this revision.
2. It appears that the petitioner was on bail when the appeal was heard by the learned Sessions Judge. It is given towards the end of the impugned judgment that the petitioner was in attendance earlier at the time of arguments before him but was absent on the day of announcement of judgment and, therefore, his warrant of arrest be issued so that he may be taken into custody and committed to jail to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence.
3. On 22nd March, 1980 the present revision petition alongwith an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner was filed by Mr. M. A. Shahid Siddiqui Advocate. It is mentioned towards the end of para. 2 of the said application (Cr. M. 305--80/B. W.P.) and the affidavit of the petitioner attached thereto that the petitioner is still at large. It appears, however, that without being informed of the said averment in the said application, this Court summoned the record of the case on 24th March, 1980 and later admitted this revision to regular hearing on 18th June, 1980. On the same day, notice in the application for suspension of sentence was also ordered to be issued to the State. However, on 25th October, 1980 when the said application came up for hearing, it was noticed that the petitioner had not surrendered after his appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 13th March, 1980. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement before this Court on that day that the petitioner had not turned up though he had contacted him on the previous date of hearing. Since the petitioner was not undergoing any sentence of imprisonment, the said application for suspension of sentence was dismissed on 25th October, 1980.
4. It is stated that about four months ago, Mr. Shahid Siddqui Advocate accepted Government service and was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge. The office of this Court in accordance with the practice prevailing in this Registry, realising that petitioner's counsel had left the profession, -sent notices through the D. S. P., Haroonabad, to the petitioner directing him to appear in this Court on 30th June, 1982. The report of the Police Official made at the back of this notice is that on account of fear of this case, the petitioner had abandoned his residence and his whereabouts were not known and he was not available. Accordingly, the serving Police official affixed a copy of the notice on his house. Again a notice was sent on 26th August, 1982 directing the petitioner to appear on 18th September, 1982 (today). Again the report was that he had left his house about two years ago and had gone to some place which was not known to anyone. It was further reported that his father had already sold his land and had gone to Bahawalpur. Notice was, therefore, sent back unserved to this Court.
5. It is clear from the above that this Court has made reasonable efforts to serve -the petitioner, but has failed in the matter. Further in view of the above-reports there is no possibility of petitioner being served on the address given by him in this revision petition. Furthermore, under section 440, Cr. P. C., petitioner has no right to be heard. I, therefore, proceed to look into the case myself as it is fixed for regular hearing today.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has not surrendered so far and is a fugitive from justice and, therefore, his revision should be dismissed.
7. It is clear from averment made towards the end of para. 2 of application for suspension of sentence and affidavit attached thereto that petitioner had neither been arrested nor had surrendered at the time of filing of the revision and had executed Wakalatnama in favour of his counsel on 22nd March, 1980 and his counsel had filed this revision while he was still at large. From the statement of counsel for petitioner made before this Court on 25th October, 1980 also it appeared that he was even on day not in Police custody. Finally the reports respectively dated 20th June, 1982 and 12th September, 1982 by Police Officials on notices sent to the petitioner respectively on 14th June, 1982 and 26th August, 1982 also show that he was still absconding. Thus it is proved not only that he was absconding at the time when this revision was filed but is still at large and has become fugitive from justice.
8. In case of Chan Shah v. The Crown (P L D1956 FC 43), it was held by their Lordships of the Federal Court that "it is an essential condition of administration of justice in a case affecting an individual or individuals that the persons concerned should submit to the due process of law. We cannot conceive of a more flagrant violation of this condition than a case-like the present-where the individual seeks the interference of the Sovereign to obtain revision of a judicial order, when he is himself engaged in setting that judicial order at naught'". The petitioner in that case was on bail when conviction and sentence of death was pronounced by the High Court. He did not surrender and consequently on power of attorney executed by hint in favour of the attorney, of the Supreme Court, the petition was filed. The same was dismissed with the remarks that it was "wholly unsuitable for exercise of this Court's jurisdiction". Again in case of Gul Hassan and another v. The State (P L D1969 SC 189), the appellant had absconded and before absconding had executed a' power of attorney in favour of a person for the purpose of the latter filing an appeal. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that appeal filed by the counsel on the basis of the power of attorney executed by the appellant in favour of a person before his absconsion was not properly constituted and his appeal should have been dismissed by the - High Court on that ground alone. Relying upon this decision, this Court in case of Sher Khan alias Mammi v. The State (1975 P Cr. L J 655) held that the appeal filed by a person who had fled from the jail and had not surrendered thereafter, should not be decided on merits but should be dismissed on the ground that he was fugitive from justice.
9. In view of my finding that petitioner is a fugitive from justice, respectfully following the dictums of law laid down in the above mentioned cases, I dismiss this revision petition.